If we have to throw out the idea of a "slut" I suppose we also have to throw out the idea of a "prude".

What?

"Slut" is an insult. Are you saying we shouldn't acknowledge that women can have and enjoy sex, and that when they do we should label them with a derogatory term? I don't think you realize how offensive and sexist the term is.

"Slut" is an insult. Are you saying we shouldn't acknowledge that women can have and enjoy sex, and that when they do we should label them with a derogatory term? I don't think you realize how offensive and sexist the term is.

What I'm saying is if we throw out a nasty word for a woman who is very open about sexuality, we should then throw out a word for one who is NOT open about sexuality.

We shouldn't say that if you wanna have sex well hey the sky's the limit... but if you don't want to, well you're just a fucking prude

They may be perceived as being more uncomfortable than most with sexuality, nudity, alcohol, drug use or mischief.

It's more about the idea of a woman who is not wanting to have sex. If we're going to be completely OK as a society with what some people call sluttiness, then we should also be OK with not wanting to have sex. To fail to do so is hypocrisy, if we're thinking of open sexuality in terms of liberation

It's more about the idea of a woman who is not wanting to have sex. If we're going to be completely OK as a society with what some people call sluttiness, then we should also be OK with not wanting to have sex. To fail to do so is hypocrisy, if we're thinking of open sexuality in terms of liberation

there's a difference between not wanting sex and being uncomfortable about sex. and it's not like prude in that context is even offensive whereas slut is offensive no matter what

there's a difference between not wanting sex and being uncomfortable about sex. and it's not like prude in that context is even offensive whereas slut is offensive no matter what

I agree that there is a different in nastiness between the two words, but again this goes back to the idea that I said before. There is an idea behind a slut and an idea behind a prude... or if I must say it, a person who is not willing to have open sex.

So what does "uncomfortable about sex" mean anyway then?

Also when I think of the word "Prude" I think of the Old Prude from The Sims who would come up and slap you if you made out with your significant other in a public place.

This is also wrong tbh. There are girls who go through a slutty line and then settle down right.
The opposite could happen to non-slutty girls aswell. I've seen both happening. Pretty princess girls that say dicks are messy and don't even think about guys then go to college and wake up naked and drunk in a random street.

It could actually be from multiple factors. Since it also mentions children out of marriage and a few other things.
Women who have had sex earlier might tend to not have the best pick on male partners which often leads to certain issues later down the line.
This is even more likely to be a cause with out of marriage children, as the mother is more like feeling a certain pressure to marry essentially anyone that's available and in turn often chooses a strongly incompatible partner.

A further thing to keep in mind, women with children out of marriage tend to from lower areas of society - lower middle class or low class in most cases, one could probably find similar trends in early sex as well.

And couples in these areas of society tend to be a lot less structurarly secure than upper class families.

As a last thought - there's a possibility that a certain amount of those who have had sex early and often are very certain about their person and have taken a relatively male aproach to dating when one says it like that. Women like that are more likely to leave a relationship if the partner isn't what they wanted.

While women who had sex later in life might not be as self certain and as a result tend to take up more bullshit before they decide to leave a relationship.

well because a slut is a promiscuous woman right? and the word is derogatory because some people seem to think that women should all remain 'pure' and resist sexual temptation whereas men can generally fuck as much as they want and most the time are lauded for it rather than insulted. it's misogynistic to think that women shouldn't be allowed to enjoy sex and to have as much (or as little) as they want!

Personally I disagree with the idea that the more partners a man's had the better. However my sexual orientation makes me not put this into consideration as much. It is hypocritical of many, correct.

One notes that the whole idea of "Men should fuck as much as possible, women as little as possible" leads back to earlier times, biologically. Female animals of most species are selective of mates. Male animals just want to fuck whatever, e.g. male dogs go into frenzies upon smelling a bitch in heat.

well because a slut is a promiscuous woman right? and the word is derogatory because some people seem to think that women should all remain 'pure' and resist sexual temptation whereas men can generally fuck as much as they want and most the time are lauded for it rather than insulted. it's misogynistic to think that women shouldn't be allowed to enjoy sex and to have as much (or as little) as they want!

Oh, I can see where you people are coming from now, and I agree, but this thread has nothing to do with misogyny apart from OP using the word "slut" in the thread title. The word wasn't used in the article itself, it was way more tolerant, so the study itself isn't really misogynistic, yet Sanius said it was, and that resulted in a long, pointless discussion, which Sanius is known to start.

Oh, I can see where you people are coming from now, and I agree, but this thread has nothing to do with misogyny apart from OP using the word "slut" in the thread title. The word wasn't used in the article itself, it was way more tolerant, so the study itself isn't really misogynistic, yet Sanius said it was.

The word misogyny is thrown out a lot around here I've noticed, get used to it

Oh, I can see where you people are coming from now, and I agree, but this thread has nothing to do with misogyny apart from OP using the word "slut" in the thread title. The word wasn't used in the article itself, it was way more tolerant, so the study itself isn't really misogynistic, yet Sanius said it was, and that resulted in a long, pointless discussion, which Sanius is known to start.

but the study itself only targets girls, so it's trying to make it look like girls having sex more is somehow a bad thing without looking at male teenage-sex to divorce ratios or whatever.

Personally I disagree with the idea that the more partners a man's had the better. However my sexual orientation makes me not put this into consideration as much. It is hypocritical of many, correct.

One notes that the whole idea of "Men should fuck as much as possible, women as little as possible" leads back to earlier times, biologically. Female animals of most species are selective of mates. Male animals just want to fuck whatever, e.g. male dogs go into frenzies upon smelling a bitch in heat.

we aren't mindless animals that are slaves to our survival urges so that's no excuse.

That's because the point of the study is to study girls. It shouldn't be considered offensive to study a group of people.

well it seems like a stupid thing to just study girls? like, why do that when if they studied promiscuity in all teens and the effect that has on marriage in later life it would give them data that isn't worthless? that's why it seems to me like this study is a bit MISOGYNISTIC!!!!